Dismissed

Antriksh Gargee v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2022CW/6038/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a petitioner of a deceased LPG distributor sought direction to reconstitute the firm as a Proprietorship under SC/ST category policies. The Court held that the contract was with the deceased woman, the petitioner lacked standing, and the proposed management breach justified non-interference, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue reconstitution order of the firm was dismissed. Suspension of distributorship remains.

Antriksh Gargee Vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6038/2014

Antriksh Gargee

----Petitioner

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kuldeep Chand Gargee (father of
	thepetitioner – inperson – on VC).
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. O.P. Mehta on VC.

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Judgment

¶11

Reserved on 27/01/2022 Pronounced on 02/02/2022

¶12

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

¶13

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following relief:

¶14

“ A writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioner and

¶15

(A) the respondents no. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to issue the reconstitution order of the firm M/s. Snehdeep Gas Agency as Proprietorship of the humble petitioner.

¶16

(B) any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner giving direction to the respondents no.1 to 3 to immediately revoke the

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

[CW-6038/2014]

¶19

suspension and restore the supply to the humble petitioner. ”

¶20

Mr. Kuldeep Chand Gargee, the father of the present petitioner, who appeared before this Court through virtual mode submitted that the respondent-Corporation allotted a distributorship of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in cylinders to the petitioner’s deceased wife, in the SC/ST category in the year 1982.

¶21

3.1 He further submitted that due to certain reasons, the petitioner was appointed in the Firm as Manager in 2007, and inducted as a partner having 25% share in the partnership through a partnership deed executed on 01.04.2009 and an application for the same was also submitted and the same was never accepted nor rejected, despite many attempts by the petitioner to remind the authorities.

¶22

3.2 He also submitted that the ownership of the agency vested with Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki, and that any mention of purchase of 25% of share by the petitioner was an inadvertent error of oversight.

¶23

3.3 As per the written submissions, it is averred by the petitioner that according to Clause 3 (5) of the revised policy guidelines, at Ex. P/5, on the death of one partner, the Firm shall be reconstituted with the surviving partner, and in support of this, he also submitted that there is a precedent for the same, as was in the case of the Indian Oil Corporation where surviving partner was declared as 100% shareholder.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the reconstitution application, so submitted by Late

¶25

(3 of 6)

¶26

[CW-6038/2014]

¶27

Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki, was already rejected by the concerned authority on 15.10.2012 and the same was also conveyed to her, and the said communication is also placed on the record.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner at a belated stage in the year 2014, as the communication was sent to Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki in the year 2012 itself.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that neither the reconstitution application, nor the writ petition outlines as to how the petitioner’s claim for reconstitution arises, given that he is not the proprietor of the gas agency, and therefore, the petitioner does not have privity in the matter; hence, the relief sought against the respondent-Corporation is not maintainable.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the inducting of the petitioner into the partnership of the gas agency was in breach of the Agreement entered into between the concerned authority and Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki, and therefore, any of the rights, as claimed by the petitionerare not valid per se , and that a show cause notice for termination was also issued to Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki. Learned counsel also submitted that multiple reconstitution applications were submitted before the respondent corporation, one claim being from the apparent daughter of Late Smt. Solanki, and another from a person claiming to be her husband have been filed before the respondent–Corporation.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the distributorship itself comes to an end upon the death of the sole

¶32

(4 of 6)

¶33

[CW-6038/2014]

¶34

distributor, as is the case in the present petition, and therefore, no question survives for the reconstitution proposal.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

¶36

This Court observes that the facts as narrated by the petitioner and the assertions made on behalf on Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki do not appear to be true, as is evident from the record of the present petition, as also the emphasis laid by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

This Court finds that the agreement was entered into between the respondent-Corporation and Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki, on certain grounds, one being that the deceased was a member of the SC community, that do not exist after her demise. And therefore, that the petitioner’s claim of standing in shoes of late Smt. Sneh Solanki is not sustainable.

¶38

This Court also finds that the entering of the petitioner into the partnership of the gas agency of the Late Smt. Solanki was in the breach of the agreement entered into by her with the respondent-Corporation, and therefore, the claims of the petitioner seeking to enforce rights against the respondentCorporation, do not hold good.

¶39

This Court, after looking into the record of the present petition, finds that the ‘Revised Policy Guidelines for Reconstitution RO dealership/LPG Distributorships/ SKO – LDO Dealerships’ dated 01.12.2008 clearly outline that, under Para. 3.5, the partnership shall be reconstituted with a legal heir of the deceased partner of

¶40

the partnership and the surviving partners, and that in case, for whatsoever reason, the legal heir is unwilling or not present, then

¶41

(5 of 6)

¶42

[CW-6038/2014]

¶43

the same reconstitution may be done with the surviving partner.

¶44

And that under Para.4, for dealerships or distributorships belonging to the SC/ST category, may under certain circumstances induct a minority partner in the partner from another category, however, at an point of time i.e. before or after reconstitution, the shareholding of persons belonging to the category under which the subject dealership/distributorship was allotted should be at least 75% of the total shares. If non SC/ST spouse of SC/ST dealer/distributor is inducted as partner in the dealership/distributorship, his/her share in the dealership/distributorship shall be counted as SC/ST share.

¶45

Further, under Para. 6.4 proposals found deficient and not suitable for approval will be disposed off with suitable communication giving reasons for rejection of proposal.

¶46

Further, the communication, dated 15.10.2012, as placed on the record at Ex. 10, was issued by the respondent corporation to Late Smt. Solanki stating that reconstitution proposal, already so made, was not considerable to the respondent corporation.

¶47

And that, the induction of the petitioner into the gas agency distributorship firm in question, was to be made with the prior approval of the respondent corporation, as was a necessary condition to be complied with, as laid down in Para.21 of the ‘Domestic & Commercial Agreement’, dated 26.08.1994, entered into between Snehdeep Gas Agency and the respondent corporation. And that these inconsistencies in the management of the said gas agency were recorded in the suprise investigation report, dated 24.09.2007, carried out by the respondent corporation.

¶48

(6 of 6)

¶49

[CW-6038/2014]

¶50

This Court also observes that the respondent-Corporation, after taking into consideration the factual matrix of the matter, and in accordance with the revised policy guidelines and the facts brought before it through the suprise investigation report were found to be in violation of the agreement entered into between the respondent corporation and late Smt. Solanki, took the decision, which was also clearly communicated to Late Smt. Solanki herself, to deny the reconstitution in question and suspend the distributorship of M/s. Snehdeep Gas Agency. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner that the reconstitution application was pending before the respondent authority is also a falsehood, as is reflected from the record.

¶51

In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find it a fit case for making any interference under the writ jurisdiction.

¶52

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶53

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶54

SKant/-

Antriksh Gargee v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antriksh Gargee v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayal Rupani Vs Abdul Karim

Hari Singh Vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam, Ltd. andORS

Shiv Narayan Sharma Vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam, Ltd. andORS

Chunni Lal Bhansali Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Nemi Chand Vs Mool Chand and Ors.

Rachana Kumari Sihag Vs Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner